Log In | Register
Islamic extremism remains Norway's biggest terror threat, but the danger of lone wolf attacks has also increased in the aftermath of a massacre by a homegrown anti-Muslim extremist, Norwegian security service PST said Tuesday
Nation & World | Islamic extremism remains Norway's biggest threat | Seattle Times Newspaper
Seeded on Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:03 PM EST
Article Source: The Seattle Times
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (10)
It also said threats against officials have increased significantly since July 22, and warned that actions such as Breivik's could inspire copycat attacks.
"Continued high migration, combined with weak economic growth and increased unemployment, can create a foundation for increased conflicts along ethnic, social and economic lines," PST noted.
- 2 votes
#1 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:09 PM ESTThis is relevant: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/01/sharia-law-ban-unconstitutional.html
- 3 votes
#2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:16 AM ESTThank you, WW. I recall an article from long ago (by Carloz, I think) regarding that proposed Oklahoma state amendment. I agreed with it...I think I was the only there that did! lol
So many on the Vine argue that we're protected by the Establishment Clause, but that is obviously not true when we find our courts are already involved in enforcing religious arbitration court laws.
- 2 votes
I agree with the amendment also. why is any kind of sharia, or any religious law needed here in the USA?? What so they dont go to jail for beating their wives, or daughters? Things that they get away with in iran should never be able to get a free pass here either. We have our secular laws here, and we have them for a reason.
- 1 vote
I've had a pretty good education about Muslims. I ate at a restaurant regularly for several years, which was Muslim owned, and Muslim staffed. Over several years, they went to Mecca, among other things.
I was in charge of a group of about 30 Macedonians here in the US for several years, who were mostly Catholic, but lived with Muslims in Macedonia.
- 2 votes
#3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:24 PM ESTDo they support the spread of Islam? Do they see it as political movement more than a religious movement?
- 2 votes
The Macedonians main claim was that they were undesirable. They didn't see them as their political opponents. They opposed the spread of Islam.
- 2 votes
Europe and the west have learned absolutely nothing from the history of the Crusades and the so called 100 years religious wars. If anything they should have learned that some religious ideologies will never be compatible with one another. Also, there are reasons to have sovereign countries with well defined borders and that is to keep incompatible parties apart. Norway created their own problem by opening their country due to some kind of self serving liberal feel good, goody two-shoes idealism that everyone can live happily ever after in wonderland. I think they are having second thoughts and it may be too late. Europe and the west should take a cue from the Islamic countries about restricting incompatible religious groups gaining a foothold in their countries. If they want to solve the problem they need to deport any and all immigrants that do not wish to conform to the culture and laws of the country and restrict passports and visas issued to anyone from a country that does not have social, religious freedoms and ideologies that conform or are compatible with themselves.
- 3 votes
#4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:59 PM ESTThank you. I agree with your thoughts.
Just look at the mess Europe is in, and we seem to model after, and follow their footsteps, and not by choice. I think it might be too late for Norway, as well, without a deportation scenario.
Europe and the west should take a cue from the Islamic countries about restricting incompatible religious groups gaining a foothold in their countries
Funny how we let them do it to us, yet, they won't let us do it to them in their countries.
It's a no-brainer that the 1st Amendment was designed to give 'the people' of our nation the protection of religious 'choice' - not just freedom. In other words, the freedom is in the ability to choose what is right for the group--the state--and only for the 'individual' if it is compatible to that group. Allowing the Fed/Nat Gov to overrule what a state deems desirable and 'safe' for itself, is unethical, immoral, a disgrace and a travesty. I hope we don't find ourselves in the position that Norway is in before it's too late to do anything about it.
- 4 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
